Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissing Delbert Smith’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition because he named the State of California rather than a proper custodial respondent. The court had granted Smith an opportunity to amend, but he failed to do so, and the clerk was directed to assign a district judge.
Holdings
- A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of the petitioner as the respondent, ordinarily the warden of the facility where the petitioner is incarcerated or, in appropriate circumstances, the chief officer of the state penal institution.
- A habeas petition naming an improper respondent is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when the petitioner fails to cure the defect after being given an opportunity to amend.
Questions Presented
- Whether a state prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of the prisoner as respondent.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when the petitioner names the State of California as respondent and fails to amend after being given an opportunity to cure the defect.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379(followed)
- Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360(followed)
- Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326(followed)
- Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir.)(followed)
- West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc)(followed)
- Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…